Hillsdale
the forum
Emilia Huneke-Bergquist
Julie Robison
Editors-in-Chief
Mary Kate Cavazos
Subscription Manager
Brian JohnstonMartin Kraegel IIIKate MartinChristina MillerScott RozellHeather ShellG. Stolyarov II
Staff Writers
Matthew ColeCalvin FrieburgerNathan Lichtman Jeremy Marshall John McNamara James NesbittDave Wasmer
Contributing Writers
The Hillsdale Forum
is astudent publication distributedfour times throughout the schoolyear.
Questions?Comments?Submissions?
Contact
The Hillsdale Forum
:hillsdaleforum@gmail.com
news
h
forum
3
h
forum
While images of the American flagengulfed in flames typically conjuresup thoughts of terrorism, rebels, andviolence—students at the Universityof Maine can envision a better grade.In, this, the latest example of lib-eral professionals talking liberties tothe extreme, Associate Professor PaulGrosswiler openly offered extra creditto any student in his mass commu-nications class who burned the flag,constitution, or got arrested whileexhibiting free speech. His justifica-tion of such an offer? “It is not aboutthe flag, it is about free expression.”As Grosswiler’s tirade continued,he complained that free speech nolonger existed in America because“the Republican administration hasmade it all but illegal.” Rebekah Mc-Dade, a sophomore enrolled in thecourse, was the first to complain of bias in the classroom, thus, bring-ing the case into the media spotlight.With this, Grosswiler joins the likesof Ward Churchill, Gene Nichol (presi-dent of William & Mary), and MaryColeman (University of Michigan’s president), who are all people of honor and distinction that have decided to take privilege beyond reality. It is seriouslydoubtful that, as they wrote the Consti-tution, our Forefathers allowed us saidrights to that we may send our children toinstitutions that so blatantly flout them.When did it become okay to burn theAmerican flag, and not okay to for stu-dents at an anti-terrorism rally in SanFrancisco to step on printed imagesof the Hezbollah and Hamas flags?Our country cannot afford the ide-als of freedom of speech and equalityto become disproportionate in impor-tance. Placing one above another withdo nothing but result in the continueddownward spiral of the United Statesas a whole. May we always remember the importance of the Bill of Rightsas an entire document, and put an im-mediate cease to the continued dis-section of our core values and beliefs
.
FLAMINGLIBERTY
by
eMILIA hUNEKE-bERGQUIST
The Corporation’s Purpose
by
Dave Wasmer
cartoon courtesy of USBCI
Corporate social responsibil-ity (CSR) while it may sound like atrendy marketing buzzword, it is in-stead a very real ideological threat:since 2000, nearly $18 million has been given in grants by the State De- partment for the promotion of corpo-rate social responsibility strategies incompanies from developing nations.Throughout the U.S., companies arescrambling to draw up CSR policiesof their own, in an effort to keep a“socially responsible” image. But isthis idea worthy of attention? Essen-tially, corporate social responsibilitymeans a corporation has an ethicalresponsibility to “give back” to thecommunity, in order to advance so-cial and environmental causes. Theidea is commonly associated with theenvironmentalist ideology, or pro-gressive movements aimed at helpingthe poor and improving working con-ditions. The idea has good intentions, but a fundamentally flawed basis.The sole purpose for the existenceof a corporation is to generate profit.Corporations are simply associationsof individual shareholders who investin the company and hire executivesto manage it for them. Corporate so-cial responsibility, however, says thatit is the inherent responsibility of thecorporation to work towards larger social goals. That statement is flawedon face value alone. A corporationis an artificial legal body; it is inani-mate, it has no will of its own, andtherefore cannot bear any responsi- bilities. If CSR is to stand up to anyscrutiny, the responsibility it speaksof must be intended to fall on theshoulders of the executive manage-ment, those best able to singly leadthe company. The problem here isthe purpose for which the executiveis hired: to make a profit, not advancean ideological cause, however laud-able the end result. Executives arefree to donate money and lend sup- port to these causes, if such time andefforts come out of their own pocket.To divert company resources to CSR policies in the pursuit of goals be-yond mere profit is both irresponsibleand unethical. The corporate execu-tive is not the boss of the company- the shareholders are. He is their employee, their subordinate, and theshareholders have made their wishes perfectly clear. The executive is em- ployed to maximize profit, and thatis his first priority. If the sharehold-ers intended to further social causes,they could do so privately and indi-vidually, via donations to charity or
Continued on page 11
Add a Comment